Re: Proposal: Commit timestamp

On 2/8/2007 3:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> > > Is this a new policy that after discussion, all patches must be
>> > > resubmitted with a summary and conclusions of the discussion? I can
>> > > certainly do that for you, but just tell me if you are going to ask the
>> > > same from everyone.
>> >
>> > No, I am asking only this time because I feel there was too much
>> > disconnect between the patch and the extensive replication discussion
>> > that few community members would see the connection.
>>
>> FYI, in my opinion the trigger addition is clearly useful to Mammoth
>> Replicator as well. In fact, it's so obviously useful that I didn't see
>> a need to state that in the original thread where it was discussed.
>
> Right, I know it is useful too, but I would like a layout of what it
> does and why so everyone is clear on it.

I have no clue what got you into what you are doing here. But that shall
not be my real concern. If you feel the need to do this sort of thing,
be my guest. I will add the remaining changes to pg_rewrite, including
the new support commands and changes to psql as well as pg_dump and
resubmit the new patch with explanations that will hopefully help you to
comprehend what and how this relatively small and fully backward
compatible change in the trigger and rule firing mechanism will work and
what existing problems it will solve.

Regards,
Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #